It’s astonishing to me that the sequel to Mermaids: The Body Found (2012) called Mermaids: The New Evidence (2013) racked up the highest ever ratings for Animal Planet, with more than 3.6 million people tuning in to watch the network lie to viewers about the existence of mermaids. That’s more than watched the first mermaid film last year. It’s also disturbing because Animal Planet failed to disclose until the very end—and then only in a brief flash—that the documentary was a complete and total fake. That’s what makes this show different from programs like the Science Channel documentaries that imagine what it would be like to discover alien life; those were presented as “what-if” very plainly.

Previous to this, Animal Planet’s highest rated show was another fake documentary, about dragons, which at least was advertised as a fake. They even called it Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real (2005). This time Animal Planet accused the U.S. government of a conspiracy to suppress the truth about mermaids, offering a (fictional) claim that the Justice Department and Homeland Security suppressed the website revealing the truth about mermaids—just like the Forest Service allegedly “suppressed” Scott Wolter’s research in the Maya of Georgia and the CIA allegedly “suppressed” Robert Temple’s research into amphibious, ocean-dwelling aliens from Sirius, which would be… wait… mermaids! My God, they’re on to something! The fallout from this act of corporate irresponsibility is a very large number of people—exactly how many it’s impossible to say—who believe that mermaids are real because the TV told them so. Apparently the Twitter hashtag for #Mermaids has yielded a shocking number of people who took the documentary for true, if we can use that as a representative sample. A sports reporter witnessed the Anaheim Angels debating whether mermaids were real after the show aired, and today a marine biologist spent an entire magazine article trying to explain why it’s not OK for TV to let people believe a fairy-tale version of science. Here’s one tweet I found from an 18-year-old girl, and it appears to be completely serious:

What else is the government hiding from us if they're hiding the fact that #mermaids are real...

Animal Planet began retweeting others who believed the show was real, lending an additional level of credibility to the program. And what did the show’s creator, Charlie Foley, tell ABC News? “We wanted people to approach the story with a sense of possibility and a sense of wonder, and hopefully that’s what Mermaids allowed viewers to do: suspend disbelief.” He repeated these claims elsewhere, defending the use of the documentary format because it helped people “believe” in the reality of mermaids. Does this sound familiar? It should because these are the same arguments that the History Channel and H2 make for showing programs that declare aliens the creators of humankind and the Jesus Bloodline the rightful rulers of America. A History spokesperson told me point blank that while they value truth, they believe their shows are intended as entertainment and that the audience is smart enough to draw their own conclusions. Mermaids proves that television retains the trust of many who accept what it says because it was “as seen on TV.” We can laugh at the people who were taken in by Mermaids, which at least had a disclaimer at the end, but how much more damage is done by irresponsible “documentaries” that claim to be true?

I enjoyed the dragons one because it wasn't "dragons are real" it was "if dragons were real how would they work?"

the mermaid ones were just garbage

Reply

Dan D

5/30/2013 10:34:07 am

If the disclaimer was shown a little more boldly and for more than a few seconds at the beginning of the telecast, I think the viewer numbers would've been far less.

Good show for your of age children as fiction on the Disney Channel.

I'll enjoy 'Finding Bigfoot' for a chuckle now and again.lol

Reply

charlie

5/30/2013 11:16:14 am

Jason,
What Animal Planet did was/IS irresponsible. The public reaction is totally understandable though. As John Fogerty sang, "I know it's true, oh so true, cause I saw it on TV." I may not have the quote exact, but the meaning is there. TV shows are not necessarily the truth. Shame on Animal Planet for the deception.

Reply

charlie

5/30/2013 11:17:34 am

I forgot to add that TV is all about ratings and this show and the ratings for it just prove this.

Some marine biologist friends of mine had a live tweeting snarkathon while the show was on and had a constant stream of indignant interruptions saying "U R not so smart." My favorite was someone demanding to know, if they're not real, why is there enough evidence for a second show?

Reply

Paul Cargile

5/31/2013 03:01:44 am

This is also a failure of the US education system.

Reply

Steve

6/4/2013 03:44:42 pm

Paul said, 'This is also a failure of the US education system.'

Really? Wow the folks on this blog love to write flippant things like that.

Let's take a moment to review the U.S. education system, paul (and Crabby). In particular, the Secretaries of Education. After all, most of them attended prestigious ACADEMIC institutions. Therefore, they must be incredibly good at their professions and beyond reproach. The Secretary of Education is advised by the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity. He sits with the President of the United States. He's actually in the line of succession if the president (and quite a few other politicians) dies.

Arne Duncan, 9th U.S. Secretary of Education

Duncan attended the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools and later Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1987 with a bachelor's degree in sociology. His senior thesis, for which he took a year's leave to do research in the Kenwood neighborhood, was entitled The values, aspirations and opportunities of the urban underclass.

Margaret Spellings, 8th U.S. Secretary of Education

Margaret Spellings earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from the University of Houston in 1979.

Rod Paige, 7th U.S. Secretary of Education

Born in Monticello, Mississippi, Paige is the son of public school educators. He earned a bachelor's degree from Jackson State University in Jackson, Mississippi and a Master's degree and a Doctor of Physical Education degree from Indiana University Bloomington. He also holds an honorary doctoral degree from the University of Houston, which was presented to him in 2000.

Hell, Bill Bennett - the 3rd Secretary of Education, graduated from Williams College, where he was a member of The Kappa Alpha Society, and went on to earn a Ph.D. (a Ph.D., Crabby!!!) from the University of Texas at Austin in Political Philosophy. He also has a J.D. from Harvard Law School. That's a LOT of letters behind his name.

Terrel Bell, the 2nd Secretary of Education, earned a B.A. from the Southern Idaho College of Education at Albion in 1946, Bell started a career as a high school teacher and bus driver. He later earned an M.A. from the University of Idaho in 1954, and a Ph.D. (another one, Crabby) in education from the University of Utah in 1961.

That's a lot of academic credentials, Paul. So if, as you say, the U.S. education system is failing, perhaps we should look at the people our government has put in charge of our education system.

Uh, oh… that brings up a problem. The people in charge have LOTS of academic credentials. I'll say it again, uh oh!! Ask Crabby, Paul. Academia is the salvation for our failing society. It's our only hope! I'll say it a 3th [sic: obviously only a 4 yr undergrad degree… yuk] time - Uuuuuhhh Ohhhhh.

Not sure I would point to the secs of the dept of education. Not one seemed to have a serious degree in the hard sciences or engineering. And given say bill Bennett's belief in deficit spending, central banks, and wilsonian foreign policy..they prove u can get an education but still be for crank theories. Look at depths of sociology and most of social science which pushes the worst form of theories which are not testable and are more of a political ideology based on envy and hate..as was eugenics. No going to a prestigious university doesn't mean you have critical thinking skills.

Dee W.

9/2/2013 06:53:55 am

What in the world do the "credentials" of the Education Secretaries have to do with the quality of the education system? What a ridiculous argument.

Uncle Ron

5/31/2013 04:35:55 am

God knows I am about the last person who wants more government regulations and intrusion into our lives, but this drivel should be required to include a disclaimer when returning from each commercial break: "The material in this program is not factual and is intended for entertainment purposes only." Just as responsible broadcasters often show the "Parental Discretion Advised" warnings for violent or sexual content. Of course then no one would watch - a win either way.

Reply

Graham

5/31/2013 07:23:38 pm

The program should have started with a disclaimer like that and also incorporated the words that "Any resemblance to actual organizations is pure co-incidence and does not reflect on the views and actions of the actual organizations."

The sad thing is we will probably see a third one of these, complete with fictional activists trying to protect the mermaids.

Reply

Titus pullo

6/7/2013 03:27:17 pm

Yet we never get a disclaimer from any of the "economist" on the business channels or when bernanke speaks his rubbish. Natural rights allow idiots to say what they want. Cramer screaming to buy buy buy...haha

Reply

Tara Jordan

5/31/2013 05:28:39 am

Most of this idiotic pseudo scientific programming garbage comes from the US."Made in the USA",thanks for making the world dumber one step at a time....

Reply

Jon B

6/1/2013 01:03:57 am

I am going to admit to being at least partially had by this. No, I didn't think mermaids were real, nor did I buy into much of the "evidence". I did, however, think this was a real documentary. Well, real to the same extent that Ancient Aliens, America Unearthed, and Finding Bigfoot are real.

I believed I was watching an irresponsible cable channel present an entirely one-sided story told by a bunch of pseudo scientists and crackpots. Their grainy photos and shaky video were quite convincing in this regard. Had they said up front that this was fiction, I might have found it an entertaining parody of cable documentaries.

Will this be the new approach to cable documentaries? Don't bother finding facts to distort, just make shit up? I better fill my DVR with quality programs like Honey Boo Boo and the Kardashians just in case.

Reply

RLewis

6/2/2013 03:48:04 am

I disagree with most of you. I want to see more of this. By this, I mean realistic-looking programs that later ARE ADMIITED BY THEIR CREATERS to be complete fantasy. The more people it fools, the better.
Maybe the next time they see an incredible documentary they will stop and think before tweeting their ignorance to the rest of the world.
If people need to be embarrassed into being more critical of the carp on TV - so be it,

Reply

Varika

6/2/2013 11:58:03 am

The problem is that, much like in 1938 with Orson Wells' production of War of the Worlds, the show was "admitted by their creators to be complete fantasy" in a way that is DELIBERATELY meant to be missed. In 1938, we had mass hysteria in the streets. To be honest, I find that reaction to be less harmful than the backlash to actual scientific research based on the mockumentary.

It was also incredibly disturbing to have my otherwise EXTREMELY intelligent brother come to me and announce that the evidence "was extremely convincing." He is NOT a conspiracy theorist, and the pair of us have enjoyed more than one session of debunking shows like Ancient Aliens and MonsterQuest between us. He's just beginning to work on getting his PhD in psychology. If someone who be intelligence, personality, AND training should be seeing through the bullshit, then the show did not do nearly enough to "admit they are complete fantasy."

At least War of the Worlds had a disclaimer every commercial break. This didn't--and it SHOULD have.

Wow, again. This really shows just how hollow the "it's just entertainment" claim really is.

Sticker

6/2/2013 04:09:43 am

One thing I think is important to keep in mind is that it isn't just adults (whose willful ignorance we can scoff at) who are watching these shows, it's also perfectly intelligent children who just do not have enough life experience to know better, and may now grow up with all manner of lurid misconceptions about history and science because of these crooks. After this show aired, one of my students came to school and announced, to her classmates' enthusiastic awe (and my exasperation), that scientists now believe that mermaids are real. I spent a chunk of class time arguing about standards of scientific evidence and media corruption with 3rd graders, to, I'm afraid, limited effect. Which is more compelling at 9 years old --- contemplating a world is full of magical creatures hidden by the government, or spending some time doing research and thinking critically as your stodgy old teacher asks? This is why this sort of thing really isn't funny to me. It's cynical producers trying to make as much money as possible by purposely misrepresenting fiction as reality to a credulous public --- including, most immorally, the vulnerable minds of the young.

Wow. This is why I keep talking about the moral and ethical responsibilities of those who communicate with the public--in contradistinction to their legal right to lie their faces off.

Reply

RLewis

6/2/2013 01:11:23 pm

I think it's pretty dicey to start making moral and ethical requirements of the various forms of public communication. With worldwide satellite TV and the internet, it's impossible to police all of the outlets - let alone set the standards.
However I recognize the great importance of fourth-estate sites such as this to promote the critical review of the so-called Alternate Sciences.
There's a of "information" out there today. Unedited, unfiltered, unproven. People must learn when and how to develop a critical eye.
It's better to teach a man to fish....

I don't mean that moral obligations should be translated into legal requirements; I'm talking in the general sense of the moral feelings corporate executives should (but don't) have as human beings. I wouldn't want government regulation of TV content; but I think that those who communicate with the public have a moral responsibility to consider the consequences of their actions. As the Bible said, from those to whom much is given, much is expected. Or, as Spider-Man's Uncle Ben put it, with great power comes great responsibility.

Reply

RLewis

6/2/2013 01:50:04 pm

"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows... "
You assume that the execs are consciously aware of (and accept) the negative impact of their actions. Maybe. Possibly. But I don't fault them for programming to the lowest common dollar. That's the main object of 99% of all TV programs (and much web content).
As long s American Idol is a number one hit, the mind-numbing programming will continue.
Your site and others like it are beacons of light. But I don't have any delusions that the producers of this drivel will see their errant ways. In the end, the best hope is persuade more people to challenge the supposed facts. Eventually, perhaps there will be no audience for these shows and they will disappear. One can hope.

It *is* true that making money is the current object of TV regardless of ethics; it *ought* to be the case that a consideration consequences should play a bigger role in considering what to show. You can't impose morality on anyone, though, and I am under no illusion that any money-making venture would ever choose social responsibility unless there were profit in it.

Part of what we as consumers can do to help is to make it profitable to be responsible--or at least unprofitable to be irresponsible.

Meh

1/28/2014 03:54:42 pm

Has anyone stopped to ask: Are they just suggestion that a creature once existed to create the myth?

Everyone knows that all mythology comes from a true story, but through hundreds of years of "Chinese whispers" the story becomes exaggerated and falsified.

The idea of a mermaid is far fetched, the human part of them would not be compatible with with aquatic environments. However is it not possible that an animal once existed with half its body shaped like a human? It would have skin more like a fish, and may have others similarities like eyes or ears that are similar in shape. But it would have far different skin, eyes and "hands".

Speaking intelligently; the idea of an intelligent semi-humanoid creature evolving in our ocean is not bizarre. If they died out or continues to evolve beyond the era of cave drawings; it would become likely that the animal would become inset in mythology.

Let us suggest that they died out. With only primitive hand drawn sketches, no one would know what they actually look like. As the story passes on throughout ages and languages; thing will change. The semi-humanoid shape could covert to behind "half human". If they used seaweed as a form of attire or to hide while hunting; it is conceivable stories could turn into the idea that they had hair like ours. eventually they will become more and more human.

Dolphins have a body structure that may have got twisted over a few thousand years into being more humanoid.

In current day we know that myth starts somewhere. Vampires came from humans drinking blood (actually a treatment in the 1700s for an illness, often still used today when medication fails, when people are given pigs blood to replace nutrients that their body does not produce enough of). Cyclops and other humanoid creatures are in fact deformed or physically challenged people.

We may actually see mermaids on a regular basis and not know it (because the myth went so far that we cannot recognize the animal it came from).

My personal theory is that mermaids are dolphins. Early cultures recognized the intelligence of Dolphins and over the centuries the way they described them converted into mis-interpretations of a half human fish, instead of a fish with a very high intelligence that humans regarded as almost equal. Eventually only the stories of Mermaids existed, instead of the actual accounts.

Reply

Kari Brand

4/15/2014 06:52:23 am

That's my tweet and I think it's complete garbage that they're allowed to make false documentaries like that. Discovery channel is supposed to be a reliable source of information not a bunch of bull crap.

Reply

lisa

7/4/2016 07:15:24 am

Lol bullshit for bullshit tv programs.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

About Me

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.